Unexplained five-year delay warrants dismissal of a writ petition challenging disciplinary punishment.

The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector of Police posted in Aurangabad District, was subjected to Departmental Proceeding No. 107 of 2017.

The Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad, imposed the punishment of withholding one increment with cumulative effect through Aurangabad District Order No. 2438/2019 read with Memo No. 6108/R.K. dated 30 November 2019. A subsequent order was passed by the Superintendent of Police, Crime Investigation Department and Weaker Section, Bihar, Patna, on 6 October 2020.

The petitioner contended that the enquiry report was not supplied to him and that his show-cause reply was not considered before the punishment was imposed.

He subsequently preferred an appeal before the Inspector General of Police, Magadh Range, after a delay of approximately five years. The appeal was dismissed as time-barred by Memo No. 376 dated 24 February 2026.

The petitioner challenged the appellate order as well as the original orders of punishment before the High Court.

Whether the Inspector General of Police was justified in dismissing the petitioner’s appeal as time-barred under Rule 25 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005?

Whether the petitioner had shown sufficient cause for the delay of approximately five years in preferring the departmental appeal so as to warrant condonation of delay?

Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 in respect of a stale claim challenged after an inordinate and inadequately explained delay?

The Court applied Rule 25 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005, under which an appeal against an order of punishment must ordinarily be preferred within 45 days from the date on which the order is delivered to the appellant; however, the appellate authority may entertain a delayed appeal if satisfied that sufficient cause prevented its timely filing.

The Court further relied on P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152, which holds that although Article 226 prescribes no fixed period of limitation, the High Court may, as a matter of sound judicial discretion, refuse relief to persons who approach the Court belatedly, allow matters to become settled, and thereafter seek to unsettle them.

The Court accepted that Rule 25 permits consideration of a delayed appeal where sufficient cause is established, but found that the petitioner had failed to explain what prevented him from approaching the appellate authority for nearly five years.

Although the petitioner alleged non-supply of the enquiry report and non-consideration of his show-cause reply, the Court held that the pleadings and materials on record did not satisfactorily account for the prolonged delay.

Applying the principle in P.S. Sadasivaswamy, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction in favour of a stale claim, particularly where the petitioner had not acted expeditiously and sought to challenge a disciplinary order after substantial delay.

The dismissal of the appeal as time-barred was therefore not interfered with, and the writ petition challenging the appellate order and the underlying punishment orders was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.